You are on page 1of 16

Gravitational Waves and Their Eects

Greg OBrien
May 15, 2013
Abstract
In this paper we will cover a brief survey of on going research of grav-
itation waves. Background on gravity will be presented followed by basic
concepts and implementations of gravitational waves. We will move on
to specically designed experiments that intend to measure gravitational
waves eects. Exact technical details will be forgone, covering more gen-
eral mechanisms of instrumentation at LIGO. Data sets collected from
experiments and respective results will be discussed.
1 Background
Gravity was the rst discovered fundamental force, but today is the lease well
known. Gravity is weaker than all of the fundamental forces, but has the largest
eect on our universe in terms scale. Newtons equations work well with in 98%
of all planetary measurements. At the turn of the century Einsteins equations
accounted for the other 2% of physics. An importance dierence between New-
tonian and relativity is how light travels through space. Black holes were rst
theorized by Laplace and Michel 100 years before Schwarzschild rst theorized
the Schwarzschild metric. A consequence of treating spacetime as Minkowski
Spaces is the propagation of disturbances at the speed of light in all directions. A
subset of disturbances are gravitational waves relating to acceleration of mass
at a point in space. These disturbances are tidal forces propagating through
spacetime. Gravitational waves (GWs) are yet to be directly detected but are
in strong agreement with observational results
Mass for the conversation of this paper has no negative resonance such as
charge. In order to produce an electromagnetic wave, a dipole must be displace.
Because mass on has a order of one, a quadrapole is required to produce a
propagating wave set. A rotating quadrapole moment is dene as
d

Q
ij
dt
= 3

m
1
m
2
m
1
+m
2

R
2
w
3
_
_
sin(2wt) cos(2wt) 0
cos(2wt) sin(2wt) 0
0 0 0
_
_
(1)
As the quadrapole rotates, one mass moves closer to an arbitrary point while
the other moves away. At one point in the rotation mass 1 will reach a minimal
1
distance to the observer, while mass 2 will be displaced the most. This represents
the peak of the wave, where gravitation strength will be maximum. After a
quarter of rotation, both mass will be equally distant, the trough of the wave.
A quarter more, mass 2 is the closest, and 1 is farthest. The total period of
rotation will contain two peaks and two troughs. [?]
h
+
=
1
R
G
2
c
4
2m
1
m
2
r

1 + cos
2

cos [2(t R)] (2)


Where R represents distance to the source and is the angle between the axis of
rotation and R. If the two mass follow an elliptical path, an additional moment
is created. The resulting terms are [?]
h

=
1
R
G
2
c
4
4m
1
m
2
r
(cos ) sin [2(t R)] (3)
h
+
represents a linear polarization in a plane perpendicular to the propa-
gating wave. h
x
indicates a polarization rotated /4 radians with respect to
an azimuthal z axis (the axis of propagation). Keep in mind that gravitational
rotating bodies will closely follow Keplers laws in relativistic form. Energy
expelled through this precess is know as gravitational radiation. Without an
external force, gravitational potential energy is slowly dissipated and the pe-
riod of rotation will decrease as the masses move closer together. The resulting
energy ux is given by [?]
P =
dE
dt
=
G
5c
5
_
d

Q
ij
dt
_
2
=
32
5
G
4
c
5
(m
1
m
2
)
2
(m
1
+m
2
)
r
5
(4)
As the objects move closer, their velocity increases maintaining a quasi-stable
system. The change in potential occurs slowly form gravitational radiation and
the increase in kinetic energy. Taking the limit of potential energy going to zero,
we can solve for the time till collision. [2]
t =
5
256
c
5
G
3
r
4
(m
1
m
2
)(m
1
+m
2
)
(5)
The following set of equations are only dened for one wavelength outside the
center (1/2 a light year). Similar to electromagnetic radiation, gravitational
radiation drops o as 1/r
2
. The resulting amplitudes are relatively small dis-
turbances of spacetime.
At sucient distances GW can ba approximated as plane waves. For waves
propagating in the z direction, the spacetime metric uctuates by
d
2
' dt
2
(1 +h)dx
2
(1 h)dy
2
dz 3 (h 1) (6)
where h is the fraction deviation of the metric in dx
2
and dy
2
such that h = h
+
,
also known as the strain. Where total strain is given by hD with D as the
2
distance measured. In free space with h << 1, the Einstein Field Equations
reduce to the wave equation. [1]

2
h
t
=

2
h
x
+

2
h
y
+

2
h
z
(7)
With the wave propagating along the z axis, the equation can be generalized to
h = h
+z
(z t) + h
z
(z + t). We only care about the positive direction due to
cylindrical symmetry in r so the second term may be ignored. The distortion
of space only occurs in the plain orthonormal to the indent wave. Contraction
occurs in the x direction while expansion only occurs in y alternating every
1/4th period of revolution. [2] Gravitational polarization distorts spacetime in
dierent directions. Both polarizations are found in GWs. Any strain measured
is from a combination of two fractional polarizations strains h
+
and h

. The
Figures below show exaggerated eects of GWs. Typical h
+
or h

are on the
order of 10
26
Figure 1: Annenberg Learner, Physics: Gravitational Waves
Displacements are correlated such that if x contracts, y expands and vise
versa. If we add the deviation in the x direction and deviation in the y direction,
we will get zero. The circumference of circle normal to plane of propagation does
not change.
In spacetime, if distance changes, time changes (which really are one in the
same). The speed of light inside the gravitational eld is d
2
= dt
2
(1 +
h)dx
2
dx = (1 +h)
1/2
dx (1 h/2). An observer inside the
gravitational wave would also experience a change in space scale and time so the
speed limit of light is safe. If a strong gravitational wave passed though earth,
we would not view anything dierently because space and time would contract
and expand at the same rate.
Spacetime curvature can be expresses by the metric tensor g

, which con-
tains information on how the space has been changes. In the form of the Einstein
Tensor the metric tensor is related by [?]
G

=
8G
N
c
4
T

(8)
Where G
N
is the gravitational constant and T

= g

. If we take
our gravitational radiation from a point source (i.e. very far away) the crucial
3
radiation eld will be represented by

_
| det g|g

(9)
where

is the at spherical space metric and satises the de Donder gage


coordinates the conditions;

= 0. Since the divergence is zero the we can


approximate the Einstein equations to be linear, with them as

= 16

(10)
where =
+
t
is the at-space dAlembertian operator. The equation reduces
to the homogeneous wave equation with a point source in spherical coordinates
and

h

= 0 Because our equations are now linearize (in spherical coordinates),


We can dene the strain tensors h
+
, h
x
as [?]

=
_

_
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 h
+
(t r, r, , ) h

(t r, r, , )
0 0 h

(t r, r, , ) h
+
(t r, r, , )
_

_
(11)
For further derivation see Appendix A
2 Detectors, Past and Present
In 1993 the noble prize in physics was presented to Russell A. Hulse and his
graduate student, Joseph H. Taylor Jr. for measuring a Doppler shift in a pair
of binary pulsars. Using the Arecibo dish they were able to show a decrease
in the binary orbital radius. In accordance with Einsteins theory of relativity,
gravitational radiation carried energy away form the system. [?]
Currently there are several experiments looking for gravitational waves in the
world. No experiment to date has found any direct evidence of their existence.
Gravitational waves produce shifts in the Minkowski space metric. Due to
this, actual distance between two objects uctuate as the amount space time
between the changes with a passing GW. The actual displacement is very small
since sources are parsecs away and radiation drops of as 1/r
2
. The equivalent
example would be the gravitational force you feel from Proximal-Centari, 4.3
light years away; small! Any kind of detection form cosmological sources require
extremely sensitive data collection.
The rst scientic experiment attempting to do this was carried out in the
1970s by Joseph Weber. A solid 2 meter long aluminum cylinder was tted
with piezoelectric crystals around the diameter. In theory, a passing GW would
jiggle the aluminum at its resonate frequency of 1660 Hz. The piezoelectrics
would translate any mechanical oscillations into electrical signals. In theory the
size of oscillations would be 10

16 meters, about the size of a proton.


Weber took a great deal of precautions to isolate the cylinders from me-
chanical vibrations such as sound, seismic activity and electromagnetic waves.
However he was not able to completely isolate thermal motion, which accounted
4
for size oscillations of about 10
16
meters. The only problem was the gravita-
tional signatures he was seeking were not much larger in magnitude. Weber
was unable to precisely dene an upper limit on thermal disturbances, which
anything larger he could attribute to something else.
For his experiment Weber set up two detectors, initially side by side, and
later separated by 1000 km. Weber dened a coincidence count with in 1/2 a
second of the two cylinders as a positive reading of a gravitational wave. The
experiment ran for 81 day intervals in which data was collected. In 1970 after
about of year of perfecting the set up, Weber claimed to have produced 311
coinciding counts with the two detectors [?, weber] He claimed the magnitude
of some oscillations where so large that from them to stochastically occur would
require 100,000s of years. He also attempted to account for the directional shifts
of the planet claiming that a majority of the waves emitted for the center of the
Milky-Way Galaxy. [?]
This was a profound claim and created quit a stir in the science community (a
stir still felt today). Tony Tyson of UC Davis leaded the eorts to reproduce his
results. Eventually he founded among many others, including groups reporting
originally positive signals, that false positives were attributed to natural noise
from electronics resonance. Joseph Webers down fall seemed not to be with
the experiment itself but the assertions he made with the data. Originally an
electrical engineer who moved in to the realm of physics, Weber had little help
with the data analysis. Much of the data analysis was mad by himself personally,
which he lacked expertise in.
Today a similar experiment would have several scientist involved, each in
there specialized area. Another limiting factor was the lack of modern comput-
ing needed for the large data set. Weber bars are still a very popular experiment.
Several sites operate looking for signatures for GWs. A major disadvantage to
this experimental method although, is it requires the GW to be emitted at a
factor or multiple of the resonate frequency of the material. [ [?]]
John Weber may have never found conclusive results, but neither has anyone
else. What he did do was create a new major area of research in physics. Grav-
itational waves are one of the hot areas of physics. Goals for gravitational
astronomy is to detect known sources of gravitational radiation. GWs have
the advantage of poorly interacting with other forms of matter, such as dust
with viable light. Eventually the Background Gravitational Radiation Spectrum
(BGWS) would like to be studied to answer questions about the Big Bang in-
cluding properties of the quark gluon plasma, which was opaque to microwaves.
3 LIGO
LIGO stands for Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory. The
goal of LIGO is to detect gravitational waves originating from space. Two
type of sources are theoretically predicted; binaries producing GWs and non
symmetric events such as Type II supernovae. LIGO works by being able to
detect minute changes in distances between two stationary objects. A total of
5
three sites around the world are used to verify results. Because of maintenance,
only two are usually simultaneously collecting data. The 2 systems are located
in Hanford, Washington, H1, H2, one with H1 consisting of 2km interferometer
arms and the second 4 Km. L1 is very similar to H2, located in Livingston
Louisiana. LIGO collects data with observational period termed S runs. The
latest S5 run 2005-2007 reached a sensitivity of 3 10
22
in the 100 Hz band.
Current theoretical models place LIGO being able to detect gravitational waves
with the next 5 years with upgrades to the system.
Laser interferometers are used to measure minute changes. LIGO consists of
a system Michelson Interferometers. Under the current conguration, LIGO is
sensitive to strain of 10
21
. This corresponds to a arm length change of 10
18
m,
smaller than the size of proton. John weber pursued similar size changes in his
experiment, smaller than the diameter of a proton. To detect cosmological
sources of strain, a elaborate system of powerful lasers and seismically damp-
ened mirrors are used in conjunction with a large pipeline of blocked statistical
analysis. The interferometer mirrors serve as gravitational test masses. A tran-
sient gravitational wave in theory should cause the mirrors to move slightly
causing a phase shift in one of the arms. The change in interference patter in
proportional to the strain of the gravitational wave. LIGO has two basic modi-
cations to the basic Michaelson interferometer set up. Fist 99% silvered mirrors
are induced along the beam track to make the eective arm length 100 times
longer. Secondly, is a partial reecting mirror is place between the laser and the
beam splitter with allows for stronger interference pastern to be produced.
Lasers used are Nd YAG oscillators with 10w ampliers producing a 1064
nm beam. Having a steady beam is extremely important to accuracy of the
system. The beam is actively regulated by continuous sampling and providing
feedback to the ampliers and stabilizing servos. The laser frequency must also
be stabilized since a any kind perturbation would produce a false positive in
the system. Before laser light is sent through the arms, it is channeled into a
reference cavity where the signal is measured and the power adjusted. The rate
of sampling and adjustments is 500kHz. The laser is also phase modulated with
two radio frequency Sin waves.
Once stabilized the beam passes into a vacuum system (10
8
to10
9
Torr)
where all interferometer components are enclosed. First The laser passes through
a mode cleaner. Next the laser passes through a Faraday isolator and a 3 mir-
ror telescope is used for arm cavity modes. The arms of the interferometer are
4Km long, and 1.4 m wide hydrogen depleted stainless steal vacuum chambers.
All interferometer optical surfaces,(mirrors, splitter) are manufactured with a
polished multilayer dielectric coating with minimal scattering and absorption.
Light hitting other surfaces is a serious problem causing surfaces to heat up. Ra-
diation (from inside or outside) cusses the surface to vibrate, producing a false
positives. To help control this eect, 200 baes are included in arm that trap
light deviating at small angles. The baes are cone shaped direction deviation
light away form the laser path.
Each component of LIGO must be vibrationally isolated. This accomplished
one of two ways, vibrational isolation and active vibrational correcting were
6
servo motors that try to actively mitigate the aects of signal pollution. Each
mirror is suspending by a wire forming pendulum which reduces vibrations by
f
2
above Eigenfrequencies. Test masses are further controlled by electronic
actuators and magnets. These help to isolate the system from tectonic noise.
The laser and diraction must also be isolated. Problems have been encountered
trying to cancel out thermal motion as the laser heats up several components.
The mirrors are highly polished dielectric surfaces. About 20-60mw is absorbed
through the mirrors and the diracter. Resonance and thermoelastic distortion
can occur with the 1% translucent mirrors in the arms. In order to get a con-
sistent heating gradient, lenses are further heated by CO
2
lasers. As mentioned
earlier, other sources fo pollution come from the electronics operating at 60 hz
and the laser frequency itself. [?]
Figure 2: The LIGO Scientic Collaboration: B. Abbott, et al
The photo-detectors are located outside the vacuum area on vibrational iso-
lated tables. Telescopes are used to reduce the beam size and focus the laser
further rened by a Faraday isolator. When light reaches the asymmetric port,
its around 200mw. The signal is divided into 4 equal beams for redundancy
sampling. The interferometer response for a gravitational wave needs to be
much longer than arms of the detector. The response is approximated by
R(f)
1
1 +i (f/f
p
)
(12)
where f
p
is the pole frequency,1/4
s
. The pole frequency for LIGO f
p

85Hz. Thus the amplitude responses drops o by f

1 Orthogonal waves provide


the maximum response with. Because of the orthogonal conguration, linear
polarized GWs at certain orientations are not detected (but this is relatively
small fraction)
There are 4 main research interest at LIGO for detecting dierent types of
gravitational waves.
1. Compact binary coalescence search searches for transient well models
7
sources in the nal stages, such as neutron star mergers. Mergers resulting
resemble a negative type one Bessel functions.
2. Gravitational wave burst results from non symmetric core collapses of
stars, black hole mergers and neutron star quakes can produced such sig-
natures.
3. Continuous well wave sources from massive objects in quasi-stable orbits.
4. Stochastic gravitational wave background searching is the hardest of the 4.
Attempting to measure very small GWB signatures from early processes
in the universe such as the Big-Bang.
I will cover the last three, the most interesting.
4 Gravitational Wave Burst
Gravitational wave burst (GWBs) come form sudden violent events involving
large masses. Any non symmetric event will produce some form of gravitational
radiation. In any non symmetric event a large portion of mass can be accelerated
and shot out of the system. Due to conservation of momentum, the center
gravity can greatly shift. This acceleration may produce detectable gravitational
waves burst. Events such as, compact object mergers, GRBs, NS quakes, pulsar
glitches and cosmic string cusp are thought to be producers of GWs. Most of
these processes are poorly understood and less is know about the type of GW
radiation produced. In order to carry out an eective search for these events, a
survey must include a wide frequency range to include all possible wave forms.
2009-2010, LIGO ran in conjunction with Virgo termed as Joint Science Run 2,
SJ2. The run was accompanied by robotic optical telescope follow ups, radio
and SWIFT imaging.
Data collection is essentially the same for all searches, however unique data
analysis is required based on the signature being searched for. The breaking
point for any gravitational research to date has been the data. To mitigate
contamination form other sources, data quality ags are made (DFQs). This is
type blocking for statistical purposes, where only the best data is used. DFQs
in the All Sky Search for GWBs assigning 3 degrees of quality. Only data
from time periods where only weak sources of contamination are thought to
have occur were used.
A data analysis is used to isolate events of interest. Frequencies scanned
in 2007 were 64-5000Hz, based o of hardware limitations. For computational
reasons, data was broken up into two bins; 64-2048Hz and 1600-5000Hz. The
bins were overlapped as means of redundancy to compare the validity of each
data set. Three overlapping bins were added later on for redundancy and to
also tune the search removing homogeneous glitches.
The coherent WaveBurst (cWB) algorithm was used to examen the signa-
tures of GWBs. cWB is preformed in several stages. First, data is decomposed
to time-frequency representation. Then the data is wighted and conditioned,
8
removing narrow band noise contamination. Events are agged by clustering of
similar time frequency points with signicant energy(for example, 80, 81, 82Hz
signals occurring close together). Next the network data is viewed for coherence
and the likelihood of simultaneous event is considered. The method for con-
sidering simultaneous events involves the network correlation coecient (which
considers the level correlation between signals) and coherent network amplitude
coecient (which takes into account of correlation and signal to noise strength
ratios). It is important to consider not just correlation but also noise since
random noise will always have some correlation to any signal. Any GW event
candidate is removed unless the DFQ is order 3(the best). [4]
A sample of background noise is required for determining a detection thresh-
old and data with those events sampled, determining the DQFs. The samples
are taken on non regular intervals to avoid modulation with vibrational noise
sources. (If you took samples 100 times second, you would be unable to cor-
rectly identify the level of noise in the 100hz band) The detection threshold is
decided based on the False Alarm Rate (FAR) being below .125/yr which cor-
responds to false alarm probability pf 15% for strains of h
strain
= 10
22
. FAR
controls the overall sensitivity of the search. In order to examine sensitivity and
determine the FAP. Gravitational wave burst of various signatures, polarized
and unpolarized, are inject into the algorithm. The main waves tested were
1. Sine Gaussian
H
+
(t) = e
(t
2
/
2
)
sin(2ft) (13)
H
x
(t) = e
(t
2
/
2
)
cos(2ft) (14)
2. Gaussian
H
+
(t) = e
(t
2
/
2
)
(15)
H
x
(t) = 0 (16)
3. Ring-Down
H
+
(t) = e
(t/)
sin(2ft) (17)
H
x
(t) = e
(t/)
cos(2ft) (18)
4. Band limited white noise signals at specic frequency with Gaussian en-
velopes
5. Neutron star collapse waveform; models of Baiotti et al (2007) linearly
polarized (Hx = 0)
where = Q/(

2f) and Q is the quality factor. The simulated events were


injected at dierent amplitudes to test the detect eciency function of a given
signal strength, where the amplitude of the signal strength is
h
rss
=

_
|h
+
(t)|
2
+ |h
x
(t)|
2
dt (19)
9
Under the conguration of 2007, typical sensitives of h
r
ss at 50% detection
rates lied 5 10
22
Hz

1/2 to 1 10
22
Hz
1/2
for the collapsed NS waveform
at ranges 50-200pc
The biggest source of error is interpretation of the results. Going back to
Weber, if you look hard enough anywhere you will eventually nd a signal
weather its there or not. Calibration error is determined by uncertainties in the
system, random jitters in phase. The goal is to make these small as possible,
without changing what the data says. Some parts can be tested by injecting
wave packets and measuring the strain response. However the preciseness of the
calibration is limited by the accuracy of the instruments.
At the conclusion of the data analysis of S5 for GRWBs, no on-source data
was found above the FAR of once in 8 years. Noise in the experiment was con-
stant with theoretical models of unknown parameters and background processes
such as plate tectonics and ocean tides. The lowest FAP achieved was .24, a
close event but with a signal to noise ratio of only 9. Mass chirps consistent
with compact binary coalescence at signal-to-noise ratios of 17 were observed
at one point but ended up being a blind hardware injection. [9]
With the sensitivity of SJ2 we can set an upper limit on the strain for GWs.
Assuming a Poisson distribution of rare events, an upper condence interval
can be found for the time it would take to detect such an event. 50% CI for
a Sine-Gaussian wave is about 1.7 years. Considering the energy emitted by a
gravitational waves,
E
GW
=
c
G
rfh (20)
where h is the average strain, f is the frequency of the emitted GW and r is
the radius of the ducial distance from the source. If we take the population of
standard candles randomly orientated at uniform density in the sky. Factoring
the inclination angle of GWs, we can estimate the rate per volume at which
they should be observed. The upper limit derived is controlled by the detector
eciency. Higher eciency means a higher limit. Assuming 50% eciency and
the standard candle distance of a 10 Kpc search radius gives a limit on h
r
ss.
Converting to energy we get 2.2 10

8M

for signal frequencies near 150 Hz.


5 Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background
Gravitational background radiation is believed to have been from a superpo-
sition os large gravitational waves sources. Signatures form the earliest time
of the universe are believe to be contained in the waveforms. The information
contained predates ination and even when the universe became optical translu-
cent, inaccessible to normal optical probing. Resolution of seconds after the Big
Bang not billions of years would be possible. GWs are not hindered by other
forms of matter such as light. Measurement of background radiation could help
shed light on many unknown properties of the early universe; such as the in-
ationary era, the pre-Big-Bang era, electroweak phase transitions, and cosmic
strings. [9]
10
Bounds on the SGWB currently come from Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)
and cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurements. The BBN theoretical
bound is enforced due the current chemical abundances observed today.Large
GW energy densities would alter the amount of light nuclei produced shortly
after the Big Bang. Thus the
BB
< 1.1 10
5
where N
v
is the eective
number of neutrino species at the time. Measured light element abundances
in the universe, combined with data from WMAP place an upper bound of
N
v
3 < 1.4 [8]
Likewise with the observed CMB suggest a current limit on SGWB. If the
SGBW where higher, the CMB would have decoupled more and appear fainter.
If we assume homologous conditions during the Big Bang
GW
, CMB decoupling
is constrained to 9.5 10
6
Current data from S5 places energy density below
this. Below is an graphic of where theory predicts GWs strains to be found
verses spectrum.
An upper limit has been placed on the GWB and GW energy density form
Virgo/LIGO observatories based on the absence of detectable signatures. Some
implications of these results rule out several models of the early universe based
on allocation of energy. In particular are constraints on cosmic (super) strings.
Cosmic strings are thought to originate from topological defects in the phase
transitions of the early universe. Recently fundamental strings are thought
exist on cosmological scales. Data supporting cosmic strings would oer strong
support for string theorist and help resolve unknowns of particle physics at
relativistic energies. Other theories include the pre-Big Bang model were the
universe does not originate from point source. Currently all early models of the
universe are constrained by BBN and the CMB. Advance LIGO is predicted to
surpass these constraints though. [1] [8]
6 Small Neutron Stars
Rotating massive object pairs produce quadrapole Q
22
radiation, with the two
massive bodies representing the positive points. Some of the best propagators of
GW radiation are believed to be rapid rotation neutron stars in binary orbits.
11
No GW detections have been made, placing a upper limit on the spin-down
energy of near by systems. The Crab Pulsar, 2.2 kpc is restricted to 2% of
the total spin-down energy. Single asymmetric rotating neutron stars are also
believed to be possible sources. Neutron star crust is the strongest material
believed to exist, with a breaking strength 10
8
of diamond. The theoretical
hardness comes from the long range Coulomb interaction and extreme pressures
suppress failure modes. The strength is capable of supporting large asymmetries
causing a rapidly rotating single star to produce GW radiation too.
Gravitational radiation can occur over a wide frequency, , range. Not
knowing the frequency of propagating GWs further complicates of detecting
extremely weak strains. The breaking strain is the breaking stress divided
by the shear modulus. For = .01 of NS crust leads to a = 10

5 for a
1.4M

. = 10

5 is a relatively high shear, not detectable by current LIGO. The


structure of NSs are relatively unknown, but models place everything from quark
gluon plasma to exotic solids such as a spatially nonuniform super conducting
phases. Depending on the structure, higher shears are possible. Under normal
stable conditions, the life cycle of the star is not altered by much, but shortly
after its supernova could deform the star signicantly asymmetrically.
On the other hand, the strength NS crust can support large ellipticity be-
cause gravity is weaker. Moreover smaller NS are thought to have relatively
thicker crust. However Supernova explosions can place a lower limit on NSs.
Other progenitors are thought to come from fragmentation of protoNS or NS
collisions were some mass is ejected. [5]
GW observations of NS could provide unique information on the equation
of state and structure of NS. A NS star is essentially a very large nucleus with
comparable densities. Much of strong force in unknown on such large scales.
A theoretical upper limit can be placed on GW form single neutron bodies.
The centripetal force not exceeding the gravitational for neglect the long range
coulomb interaction places a rotational limit of 1 kHz for a 1.4M NS with lower
mass systems 200Hz. Ground based interferometers would be sensitive to these
smaller massed, lower frequencies. The equation of state (EOS) of Douchin and
Haensel can model the inner crust and core. The Baym, Pethick, and Sutherland
EOS can be used for the outer crust. Base o of molecular dynamics we get a
shear modulus of
= .1106
Z
2
e
2
a
n
i
(21)
Where ions have charge Z, density n
i
and a the radius. The gure below is for
a .12M

with a 29km radius.


Based on MD simulations the maximum Q
22
The mass quadrapole moment
can be represented by
Q
22
= 2
_
(r)r
2
Re Y
22
dr
3
(22)
Q
22
=

32
15

1/2
_
r
3

48 14U +U
2

dU
d ln r

dr
3
(23)
12
Figure 3:
where (r) is the energy density and g(r) is the acceleration due to gravity and
U = 2 +dg/d ln r. The ellipticity fraction dierence in the moments of inertia,
=
I
xx
I
yy
I
zz
=

8
15

1/2
Q
22
I
zz
(24)
Below the graphic represents the mass vs radius vs inertia relationship. As the
neutron star increase in mass, the radius diminishes but the overall inertia of
a system increases. Neglecting relativistic eects and distortion due to highly
rotating star (the system were interested in are 200Hz), is well suited to the ap-
proximation. The moment of inertia increases for low masses due the increased
radius. [4]
The maximum Q
22
and the NS crust can support is depends on the mass,
with higher stars having greater gravitation force, yielding the gure below. The
Q
22
and are over 100 and 1000 times higher for Q
22
and in .12M

vs a 1.4M

.
As mentioned above, this sets limits on the angular frequency of the system.
Coupled with the equation of state, assuming long range Coulomb interaction

max
= 1050

M
M

1/2

10km
r

3/2
Hz (25)
with a 1.2M

of radius 29.5 having


max
70Hz. Depending on the equation
of state, the composition of the core can aect the out come by about 25 %.
Assuming NS with ellipticity , at distance d away the gravitational strain is
given by
h
0
=
16
2
G
c
4
I
2
d
(26)
A .12M

maximumly 100Hz stressed star at 1 kpc gives a detectable single


with the LIGO All Sky Search. The probability of detecting such a star is small
due to the short life time. The system would emit strong gravitational energy
and slow down. Accreting matter could signicantly increases the lifetime of
the star, but the accreted composition would be signicantly dierent, leading
13
Figure 4:
to a new moment of inertia and EOS. The impact of the accreted matter could
also alter the system further and strain the crust, an active area of research.
In theory a lower mass neutron star could support greater deformations than
a higher mass counterpart, closer to its strain limit. It is important to realize
that any gravitation research will be biased to a desymmetrical system capable
of produce greater signatures. To actually have a low mass gravitational wave
source, three things are needed; formation (i.e. fragmentation), deformation,
and something to induce rotation in the system. All this can occur at once or
separately. [5]
7 Appendix A

= 16

(27)

=
_

_
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 h
+
(t r, r, , ) h

(t r, r, , )
0 0 h

(t r, r, , ) h
+
(t r, r, , )
_

_
(28)

(t, ~x) = 16
_
G

(t, ~x; t
0
, ~x
0
)

(t
0
, ~x
0
) dt
0
d
3
x
0
(29)
G

(t, ~x; t
0
, ~x
0
) =
1
4

(t |~x ~x
0
| t
0
)
|~x ~x
0
|
(30)
We are consider the negative parts of the function representing GW traveling
away from the source.

(t, ~x) = 4
_

(t |~x ~x
0
|, ~x
0
)
|~x ~x
0
|
d
3
x
0
(31)
14
We only wish to look at the function over a very small space very far awy from
the source so we can further simplify to

4
r
_

(t r, ~x
0
) d
3
x
0
(32)

h
ij
(t, ~x)
4
r
d
2
dt
2
_
x
0
i
x
0
j

00
(t r, ~x
0
) d
3
x
0
(33)
and since

= 0

00
=
j

jk
v (34)

h
ij
(t, ~x)
4
r
d
2
dt
2
_
x
0
i
x
0
j

00
(t r, ~x
0
) d
3
x
0
. (35)
where =
00
the mass energy density If we look at a binary mass system with
the masses behaving like point masses, we can describe the energy density as a
pair of delta functions with positions x
1
and x
2
of mass M
1
and M
2

h
ij
(t, ~x)
4
r
d
2
dt
2
_
x
0
i
x
0
j
p(t r, ~x
0
) d
3
x
0
. (36)
(t r, ~x
0
) = M
1

3
(~x
0
~x
1
(t r)) +M
2

3
(~x
0
~x
2
(t r)) (37)

h
ij
(t, ~x)
4
r
d
2
dt
2
_
M
1
x
i
1
(t r)x
j
1
(t r) +M
2
x
i
2
(t r)x
j
2
(t r)
_
(38)

4
r
M
1
M
2
R
n
i
(t r)n
j
(t r) (39)
References
[1] Alex Abramovici, William E. Althouse, Ronald W. P. Drever, Yekta
G ursel, Seiji Kawamura, Frederick J. Raab, David Shoemaker, Lisa Siev-
ers, Robert E. Spero, Kip S. Thorne, Rochus E. Vogt, Rainer Weiss, Stan-
ley E. Whitcomb, and Michael E. Zucker. Ligo: The laser interferometer
gravitational-wave observatory. Science, 256(5055):325333, 1992.
[2] H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner. Gravitational
waves in general relativity. vii. waves from axi-symmetric isolated systems.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and
Physical Sciences, 269(1336):2152, 1962.
[3] K. S. Thorne C. W. Misner, J. A. Wheeler, K. S. Thorne C. W. Misner,
and J. A. Wheeler. Gravitation. W. H. Freeman and Co., 1973.
[4] LIGO Scientic Collaboration and LIGO Scientic Collaboration. Search
for Gravitational Waves from Low Mass Compact Binary Coalescence in
LIGOs Sixth Science Run and Virgos Science Runs 2 and 3, volume 85.
2012.
15
[5] LIGO Scientic Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, J. Abadie, B. P. Ab-
bott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. Abernathy, T. Accadia, F. Acernese,
C. Adams, R. Adhikari, C. Aeldt, M. Agathos, P. Ajith, B. Allen, G. S.
Allen, E. Amador Ceron, D. Amariutei, R. S. Amin, S. B. Anderson, W. G.
Anderson, K. Arai, M. A. Arain, M. C. Araya, S. M. Aston, P. Astone,
D. Atkinson, P. Aufmuth, C. Aulbert, B. E. Aylott, S. Babak, P. Baker,
G. Ballardin, S. Ballmer, D. Barker, F. Barone, B. Barr, P. Barriga, L. Bar-
sotti, M. Barsuglia, M. A. Barton, I. Bartos, R. Bassiri, M. Bastarrika,
A. Basti, J. Batch, J. Bauchrowitz, Th. S. Bauer, M. Bebronne, B. Behnke,
M.G. Beker, A. S. Bell, A. Belletoile, I. Belopolski, M. Benacquista, J. M.
Berliner, A. Bertolini, J. Betzwieser, N. Beveridge, P. T. Beyersdorf, and
et al. (740 additional authors not shown). Search for gravitational waves
from low mass compact binary coalescence in ligos sixth science run and
virgos science runs 2 and 3. 11 2011.
[6] A. Gualandris and A. Gualandris. Ejection of Supermassive Black Holes
from Galaxy Cores, volume 678. 2008.
[7] Lawrence Krauss, Scott Dodelson, and Stephan Meyer. Primordial gravi-
tational waves and cosmology. 04 2010.
[8] LM Krauss and LM Krauss. Primordial Gravitational Waves and Cosmol-
ogy, volume 328. 2010.
[9] D. Merritt and D. Merritt. Consequences of Gravitational Wave Recoil,
volume 607. 2004.
[10] P. Peters. Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses.
Physical Review, 136(4B):B1224B1232, 1964.
[11] Kip Thorne and Kip Thorne. Multipole expansions of gravitational radia-
tion, volume 52. 1980.
16